FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - More or less space with handle on the outside???
Old Jul 30, 2012, 11:38 pm
  #1  
Mellonc
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: BUR
Posts: 769
More or less space with handle on the outside???

For the bag crazed OCD types......

I criticize Briggs bags a lot cus it seems the handle mechanism being outside the bags seems like a waste of space. From the strict space utilization perspective it is a waste of space and you wonder if these guys passed high school geometry. Yet I ponder whther the guys who used CAD just to design pockets in a briefcase are really that simple minded.... Anyways the left side of my brain has always wondered how in the world these guys claim that there is more usable space with the outside handle system without increasing the total depth of the bag. I experimented with some drawings below. Please criticize my thinking if you would.....



The first is a conventional bag in an imaginary overhead bin viewed in a sectional way fitting in wheels first. Note the 9.5 inch is the typical depth of the bag including the wheels. AlSo see the 8.75 is he actual depth not including the wheels. Do you notice the bag sits on an angle? It has to because the wheels stick out. Thus there cannot be a flat space on the bottom if the bag sits in the bin this way.

Now the second pic:

You see that bag sits horizontal cuz the handle system on the outside is extended through the whole length of the bag. (the wheel protrusion and handle depth is the same on Briggs bags) You also see on top of the bag that there is no wasted space between the bag and the bin.

In the drawing you see that the space left over after accounting for the depth of the handle system using the same total depth leaves the depth of only 8.2 inches rather than the 8.75 inches. A one half inch difference times 22 times 14 is the cubic inches lost. Or is it??? Remember that on the "enclosed system" the handle mechanism, the bottom support mechanism, and top cut-out (where the handle gets recessed into the bag) take up room. After subtracting those cubic inches you are really left with a very small theoretical advantage with the (enclosed system).

Yes I know this is very OCD. but I think I should stop criticizing Briggs from now. I think they know what they are doing.

Last edited by Mellonc; Jul 31, 2012 at 11:19 am Reason: images inserted
Mellonc is offline